the good and bad from yoda

If you know any of the quotes from Star Wars' Yoda, these should be familiar.  They're the two that stuck with me the most since I heard them, and I had a negative reaction to both.  Obviously, Yoda's character was not written to align with my personal beliefs and doctrines.  However, after much consideration I was able to conclude that I was wrong about one quote and right about the other in light of my understanding of Scripture.

The Good: Fear, Anger, Hate...

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

When I first heard this I kind of wrote it off as standard Eastern philosophy, but there is more Biblical here than I would like to admit.  Even before looking at Scripture, the Fear → Anger → Hate linkage is fairly obvious.  Most acts of hate can be traced back through anger issues to fear.  Looking at Scripture, though, puts this in a new light.

Fear (other than fear of God) is a sign of a lack of trust in God.  Godly love does not coexist with fear.

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

- 1 John 4:18

The purpose of Yoda's statement is indeed far different from John's.  Yoda is pointing to the danger he sees in a specific character's future and the political and physical implications of that danger.  In context, John is providing an internal litmus test for whether someone truly has God's love.

The Bad: There is no try

"No, do or do not.  There is no try."

I think this is supposed to make sense in the context of the force, but I have never been sure.  Regardless, this philosophy is a perfectionist's recipe for disaster.  The sort of person who takes, "there is no try," to heart is the sort for whom effort is of no value and only results matter.  That sort of person is a nightmare to appease, and I would suspect is a nightmare to be as well.

An observant person might make the argument that we are to be perfect in the same way that God is (Matt 5:48), and so this idea of results being what matters is right.  Another observant person might point out that God performs the work in us (Phil 1:6), and so the idea that we can try to be better is futile.  I would respond that our path to perfection is one during which we are still imperfect, and that the work in us is incomplete, so the best we can do is live from the level that God has helped us reach.  Beyond that, we try to emulate the examples we are given with God's help and mercy.

"Only let us live up to what we have already attained. Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you"

- Phil 3:16-17

The Ugly

"When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not "

Ha!

As a final note, it is a little bothersome that the same person who voices Yoda also does Fozzie Bear's voice.  I keep expecting a, "wocka, wocka," after everything Yoda says.  Annoying it can be.

rules and relationship

I have spent a lot of time in my life trying to reconcile the passages in Scripture that can be interpreted legalistically with the passages that outright state that legalism is not what God is looking for from us.  I alluded to this a while back, but how could God in one moment tell us that we don't earn salvation and in the next list the sorts of sins that people who don't get salvation commit?  Certainly, this is partially answered by the fact that we sin because we are sinners rather than being sinners because we sin, but there was still something I wasn't getting.  There are still things we are supposed to do or not do and it still smacks of legalism.

The strongest example that I could give of a Scripture passage that seems on its face to be legalistic is probably Ephesians 4:17-5:21. I have heard many, many of what I have considered legalistic sermons quote pieces from this passage.  It's tempting to do because Paul is pretty straightforward about a few things that believers shouldn't do.  While I have always also felt bad to have a lowly opinion how the passage was used, I also always felt that I was right about this being the wrong approach to the passage. It was only recently that I noticed that the passage itself actually address the potential legalism in 4:22-24, in that our goodness is something God creates rather than something we earn.

"You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness."

In these verses we see that the way to do the right things is not to just to accept Paul's chastening and be better people, but to put on a new self and allow God to change the attitude of our minds.  The idea that we're going to stop stealing if our nature is to steal (4:28), or to stop slandering if our nature is to badmouth (4:29), or to do any of the other things listed in the passage without God changing our attitude is ludicrous.  Our role is to put off our old selves (4:22) and not give the devil a foothold by clinging unnecessarily to that old self (4:27).  It is God who actually performs the changing of our attitude and allows us to put on the new self that is created by Him if we let Him (4:24).

I am posting this on Valentine's Day for a reason.  I remember early on in my relationship with Golden I kind of dreaded Valentine's Day, not because I didn't love her, but because I was scared I would break some unwritten rule about the day in what I gave her or did for her.  You can say it doesn't matter all you want, but in the first few years of a relationship when you haven't had many Valentine's Days together there's no telling what will be interpreted as, "I don't love you," or, "You aren't special."  Now, Valentine's Day does not worry me too much because I understand better what makes Golden feel loved and appreciated.

That Valentine's Day fear of triggering some unknown rule violation is like taking a legalistic approach to God.  Early on when we are new in our relationship we have these rules that we follow, even if we don't always understand them, because we don't know if we might accidentally make God mad by doing such-and-such a thing.  As we grow in the relationship, though, we should not require rules to understand the life He specifically wants us to live.  While some things are flat-out wrong as if they were serious rules that should not be broken, it is the fact that they violate our relationship with God that is wrong rather than that they break some arbitrary rule.

For example, someone who is married should not have to have a rule that says he or she should not cheat on his or her spouse to understand that cheating is violating their relationship.  Having to create a rule that says, "No cheating," while perhaps necessary in fragile times in the marriage or when one spouse is a little dense, can frankly be insulting that it was necessary at all.  Likewise, as we put on the mind of Christ there are some things that we should intuitively know we personally should or shouldn't do, even though there are not official rules created for them.  They may or may not be fine for other believers, depending on what specifically God is requiring of them, but our obedience in this case should not be to a rule book, but to our heart.

The most important aspect of this, though, is that when God expects something of us, it is through Him that it is possible to complete it.  We cannot ever be good enough for God.  This is important because it flies in the face of the popular, yet legalistic, attitude that says I have to continually try harder in my own power to measure up to God.  My role is to submit, put on Christ, and let Him make the necessary changes that will result in me doing the right things.  When Jesus said that his yoke was easy and his burden light (Matt 11:28-30) He was implicitly stating that we would not be doing the bulk of the work ourselves.

A further point that builds off my belief that sin is not breaking a rule, but rather violating a relationship, I think one of the greatest dangers that faces the modern church is the generational rifts and resulting isolation that appear when sin is defined through cultural rules.  In both liberal and conservative churches, Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Catholic, et al, I believe the priorities are typically in enforcing social mores rather than using Scriptural principles to lead people to an ever-strengthening relationship with Christ.  Those are the gnats we strain out while swallowing a camel (Matt 23:23-28).

forboding movie previews

Most weekends I watch a couple of movies.  Lately, it has mostly been movies I am fairly sure that I will at least find tolerable, but every once in a while I take a chance on a movie that there is a good chance that I will not like.  Nothing makes me more leery of these movies than watching preview after preview at the beginning of the DVD of other movies that I have absolutely no interest in.  "Maybe I misjudged what type of movie this was going to be," I wonder to myself.  "I'm not really in the mood for an artsy/dramatic/ultra-low-budget/emotional/understated drama."

Usually my reticence is proven unwarranted, as I do end up finding some enjoyment in the movie.  Even so, there are times when I get a few scenes in, decide that my initial fears were spot-on, stop the movie, and move on to something else.

The previews that make me concerned usually fall into one of the following categories.

• The previews that show that every character in the movie has a horrible life and there is no indication things are going to change.  These previews are usually edited to be extremely gritty.  They make me wonder if the movie I picked out for the night will leave me in a state of nihilistic depression.
• The previews for corny family comedies.  I start to think, "Wait, am I going to laugh at any of the jokes in this movie?"
• The previews for artsy European movies with poor protagonists on a journey to find themselves or just surviving in a stifling culture.  The film is always a bit grainy and usually makes note of all the film festival awards it got.  This immediately makes me wonder how drawn-out the storyline of the movie I am about to watch is going to be, and whether there will be a real conclusion to the movie.
• The previews for other movies I have already seen and did not like.
• The previews for foreign films in general.  If all of the previews are foreign films I suspect that the film makers for the movie I am about to watch were not overly concerned with the interests of the American movie watcher.
• The previews for mid-nineteenth century period pieces.  Almost no movies I like take place in the nineteenth century, as it is dominated by romances and spaghetti westerns.  The ones I do like that take place in that time period almost always bring something different to the table (Should I be embarrassed that I'm thinking of Cowboys and Aliens as a good film placed in the nineteenth century?  At least I was not thinking of Wild, Wild West.).
• The previews for teen movies.  There are teen movies I like, but it makes me nervous if the people picking previews for this movie only selected other teen movies for the previews.
• The previews for revenge movies.  I'm not very interested in movies where the central point is revenge and nothing else of value is brought to the table, so I don't want to think I'm about to see a movie like Death Wish or The Last House on the Left.

There are others as well, but that accounts for most of my red flags.

Do you have any types of movie previews that makes you wonder if you made the right choice to watch some specific film?  What are some of your red flags?

manic pixie dream girl

Cracked has several times in the last few months referenced a specific story character type that has been grating at me for the last few years, but didn't know had a name.  The character type is called the "Manic pixie dream girl." I will refer to this character as MPDG from here on.

I would encourage you to follow the link and click on the example movies to get an idea of what I am talking about. However, Nathan Rubin, who is the coiner of the term, describes the MPDG thusly:

"The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is an all-or-nothing-proposition. Audiences either want to marry her instantly (despite The Manic Pixie Dream Girl being, you know, a fictional character) or they want to commit grievous bodily harm against them and their immediate family."

The MPDG is absolute proof that Hollywood is less concerned with realistic relationships than with idealistic fantasies that ultimately result in a painful break-up or divorce. What usually happens is a straight-laced and highly-structured male character is introduced and we find out that he is not happy with life because being structured means he obviously is broken. He meets the MPDG and decides to change his approach to life, though it varies how related and in what order these events are. Hilarity ensues. There is relationship conflict, and the conflict is resolved by the highly-structured male accepting the MPDG's approach to life and progressing in a serious relationship with her. Movies where I have noticed this are Elizabethtown, Stranger than Fiction, and (most egregiously) Yes Man.

Apart from the fact that the MPDG as portrayed in the movies would not likely exist in real life, movies do real harm in romanticizing a personality type to people with clashing personality types. I can see where in real life an MPDG would be intriguing just long enough to get into a serious relationship with that person and realize the horrible mistake that has been made. True free spirits should not typically be merged with structured people. The movies kind of get around this by implying that this is a journey for the structured male character, and he will change for his beloved MPDG, but the whole idea is ridiculous. The tendency toward being structured or free-spirited, on the whole, is not a choice. A structured or free-spirited person might force themselves to live their opposite for a time, but after a while that would be a miserable existence.

Early in our relationship Golden heard someone describe similarities between partners in a relationship as money in the bank and differences as loans that will have to be paid back with interest. I can appreciate that far more now that we have been married more than a decade. We are very similar in a lot of areas, and those similarities have limited the issues we have had from our differences. In the course of our relationship most of the differences between us have resulted in or will result in some sort of compromise. Those compromises are sometimes easy and sometimes hard, but they always require care and effort and some pain.

My theory as to why the MPDG is so frequently worked into movie plots is that the character is something of a fantasy to freelance workers like writers or directors.  This free-spirited non-existent girlfriend never pressures them to get a real job or asks whether they paid the water bill.  She doesn't get upset when he gets distracted in his work or hobbies for days or weeks at a time, and doesn't care if he spends his money frivolously because she only exists for the moment.  In truth, all the MPDG character does is romanticize irresponsibility.

There are certainly other grating character types that show up in movies a lot, but I think the MPDG has to rank among the most annoying for me.  I say that as a structured man who doesn't believe he needs fixing.